Ruiz v. Darren Corp.

• Decision Date: 21 August 2019
• Docket Number: 2018–03347,Index No. 13143/12
• Parties: Rosemary RUIZ, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. DARREN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Reviz Aslamozashvili, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

175 A.D.3d 545
107 N.Y.S.3d 75

Rosemary RUIZ, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
DARREN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Respondents,

Reviz Aslamozashvili, et al., Appellants.

2018–03347
Index No. 13143/12

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—February 28, 2019
August 21, 2019

107 N.Y.S.3d 76

James G. Bilello (Russo & Tambasco, Melville, N.Y. [Susan J. Mitola], of counsel), for appellants.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

175 A.D.3d 546

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Reviz Aslamozashvili and Giorgi Toreli appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence Knipel, J.), dated December 27, 2017. The order denied the motion of those defendants pursuant to CPLR 3104(d) to vacate an order of the same court (Martin Schneier, J.H.O.), dated July 12, 2017, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to prosecute and granted the plaintiffs' cross motion to restore the action to active status and to compel those defendants to appear for depositions.

ORDERED that the order dated December 27, 2017, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In June 2012, the plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, and the defendants Reviz Aslamozashvili and Giorgi Toreli (hereinafter together the defendants) served an answer in August 2012. On June 6, 2014, the action was marked "Other Final Disp. Pre–Note." In January 2017, the defendants served a 90–day demand upon the plaintiffs to resume prosecution. In May 2017, the defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to file a note of issue in response to the 90–day demand. In June 2017, the plaintiffs cross-moved to restore the action to active status and to compel the defendants to appear for depositions. Those motions were determined by a J.H.O. in the Supreme Court, Kings County, Centralized Compliance Part, who denied the defendants' motion and granted the...